They had boats and knew everything about locks and irrigation.
Stonehenge? I think that's a different matter.
But the weapon manufacturers would have to look elsewhere for their software.
And the implications for such a law would go much further than OpenSource software.
It would be valid for any commercially developed software too.
I would be very surprised if the US government would pass a law to contradict the software industry to such an extend!
But I guess it's a valid point and something to be taken into consideration when drafting such a GPLv4.
Also don't forget that the GPLv4 goes a lot further than only the US...
For that reason we ask people to release the changes to the code back to our collection of software which provides more freedom.
While certain companies are concerned about competitors getting to see their code, the disadvantages are much less important than the advantages of being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants in the opensource community.
We limit the freedom of people who want to use our code without giving back, so we can ensure a future in which we can access data without having to depend on one company. Together we are building that future.
Yet we see that our code is being used for mass surveillance.
To snoop upon all our communications.
To invade our privacy.
To datamine our meta-data and to possibly make far-reaching conclusions.
And to build weapons of mass destruction.
I don't want to contribute to such a future.
Certain freedoms have to be limited to protect our interests and preserve our own freedoms and even our privacy.
Just as the current license is very good respected, and for certain embedded applications the GPLv3 is avoided, they would certainly not want to risk any software license violation.
And I hope it will stay that way.
At least in my country most of the intelligent Linux developers don't want to work for the weapons manufacturer. So they build less good soft/hardware as they could have otherwise.
Just like good developers don't want to work for Microsoft, because who wants to be associated with that?
The key thing is that I don't want to personally decide what is 'evil' and what is not.
But we are doing that right now with the GPLv3 already.
I believe that the EFF has a wonderful opportunity there to form a committee to make that definition and implement it legally.
And if they would use it, at least we could sue them...
My bet is they would not. And that they would have to rely upon outdated crappy software. Or pay a lot more for their software development.
Or just use software with older versions of the GPL only.
I guess that's a valid debate.
And it will still be possible to make them without our software...
I just don't want to have helped them!
We make software because of that warm fuzzy feeling. Not to know that it contributes to killing people (from whatever country).
I don't want to be part of the evil masterplans of those basards.
Currently 'patent protection' is defined as evil. But I think most of us agree there are more fundamental evil for which our software can be used...
Wake up RMS!
Whatever license, as long as it's OSI approved.
And I can't resist to post a link to our press release done today.
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt